Rolyan wrote:Let's face it, if that was my intention I would be involved with the disgraceful, divisive and dismissive reporting currently being undertaken by the middle class establishment media, who are more than prepared to see lives destroyed and economies ruined as long as they can extend this hateful anti Leave propaganda, based on lies, omissions and selective reporting.

It's deeply disturbing and puts any differences on here into perspective, although I do think that others have assumed the same narrow interpretation of my comments as they have accused me of.

Let's not drag this up again please. It's all getting a little tiresome.

Unfortunately it's not going away, even if it is a little tiresome. It will affect and infect much of what is said and done over the next 2 years. Avoiding these issues is partly what's put us in this mess.

My comments were in relation to a comment made about me, and the fact that our differences are probably not that life changing.

Having said that, perhaps the most important issue facing us is mini roundabouts at T junctions.

So (sigh) it goes like this: someone makes a point which looks reasonable. Rolyan disagree. a discussion then ensues. Invariably, that someone tries to argue his/her corner, oblivious to the fact that Rolyan is not, in actual fact, providing evidence for his own position. But by then it's too late: Rolyan is being either misunderstood or dismissed (victimised) and we have all lost the will to live.

So, here is the solution: just consider Rolyan's supporting evidence for his positions and If you are not convinced, just agree to disagree and move on. The key lesson here is that there does not need to be a consensus.

For example, a few pages ago, I could have been interested in learning more about that Bell curve that Rolyan mentioned, and how such a concept could possibly apply to something with as many dimensions as driving. But that would have been a waste of time. Instead, much better to consider his point of view and then to simply and respectfully disagree with his opinion, saving a few pages of this thread in the process. Remember, no need for a consensus.

Anyhow. Back to the topic. It started along the lines of : Adapt the roads to the drivers or the adapt the drivers to the roads? Then Alasdair made the point that in this case, adapting the roads is likely to be a quick fix for the symptoms of an underlying issue specific to elderly drivers. After that, Alasdair and Rolyan disagreed and the thread went pear-shaped.

Unfortunately, it seems that in this day and age, driver improvement is almost always going to be the least preferred option. If we accept that most likely the roads will have to adapt with slower maximum speeds, supposedly easier junctions,... Then the consequence is a vicious circle: drivers will be even less competent on average, which will lead to even more dumbing down of the roads layout. But only up to a point.

As the 20mph speed limits have shown, beyond a certain degree of inadequacy, many people simply start to ignore the law, the road signs and so on. They will drive at 30mph in 20mph zones, they will drive right of keep left signs when it's more convenient, they will drive over white circles on mini-roundabout,etc.

In that ambiguous free-for-all situation, it seems that everyone loses. But I have no idea on how to help. The real reason elderly struggle is precisely because they are old. They can't see as well, they can't turn their head as well, they can't react or process information as quickly, as when they were younger. But everything around them is happening just as fast as it always has. Yes, most of them have a lot of experience but is that really enough to balance their shortcomings? I doubt it.

Hard to see how they could adapt as a group, without some major cultural and/or political shift. So of course, the roads and other road users will have to adapt instead. Remember: old people vote and many of them are wealthy and time-rich.

So (sigh) it goes like this: someone makes a point which looks reasonable. Rolyan disagree. a discussion then ensues. Invariably, that someone tries to argue his/her corner, oblivious to the fact that Rolyan is not, in actual fact, providing evidence for his own position. But by then it's too late: Rolyan is being either misunderstood or dismissed (victimised) and we have all lost the will to live.

So, here is the solution: just consider Rolyan's supporting evidence for his positions and If you are not convinced, just agree to disagree and move on. The key lesson here is that there does not need to be a consensus.

For example, a few pages ago, I could have been interested in learning more about that Bell curve that Rolyan mentioned, and how such a concept could possibly apply to something with as many dimensions as driving. But that would have been a waste of time. Instead, much better to consider his point of view and then to simply and respectfully disagree with his opinion, saving a few pages of this thread in the process. Remember, no need for a consensus.

Anyhow. Back to the topic. It started along the lines of : Adapt the roads to the drivers or the adapt the drivers to the roads? Then Alasdair made the point that in this case, adapting the roads is likely to be a quick fix for the symptoms of an underlying issue specific to elderly drivers. After that, Alasdair and Rolyan disagreed and the thread went pear-shaped.

Unfortunately, it seems that in this day and age, driver improvement is almost always going to be the least preferred option. If we accept that most likely the roads will have to adapt with slower maximum speeds, supposedly easier junctions,... Then the consequence is a vicious circle: drivers will be even less competent on average, which will lead to even more dumbing down of the roads layout. But only up to a point.

I've accepted that this forum is not the place for my preferred debate. No problem with that. But you are being unfair and a little offensive in your summary of me and my position.

You say that someone makes a point and I disagree. I honestly thought that was the point of a forum. I've ALWAYS been extremely careful to point out that I respect the other persons position, but that I am simply giving my position. I also always point out that they are just my opinions.

You say that I don't provide evidence. What do you mean. I explain why I hold that opinion. In this case, I've explained that I beleI've that in a large group of motorists, the majority are competent (legal definition) but that there is massive variation within that group, and in my opnion it is not unreasonable to ensure that road design accomodated that variation. I made it very clear that I am not talking about incompetent drivers, or those unable to cope on the roads.

You said that you wanted to know more about the bell curve and represent the failure to discuss it as my fault. Yet you never expressed an interest in it. You never said you wanted to know more. You didn't post on it, or even send a pm. The only person who commented was Alasdair, and we had a couple of lines on it.

Because of my personal circumstances I have time to take part in these discussions, and I have done so honestly and respectfully. I have always acknowledged the other person's position; I would suggest I do so much more than many others on here who often seem to suggest that it's their way or the highway. I'm the first person to acknowledge that we all hold different persons, and I'm always the first to suggest that we can agree to disagree. I always explain why I hold my opinion and I always consider the other opinions on here.

You appear to have an issue with me and I say that simply because of the way you have misrepresented me. I was enjoying it (and learning from it) and I'm surprised at the way it's turned personal, which was certainly never my intention. I am a little dumbfounded as to the antagonism expressed by some. However, I remember being in the cub scouts, and once on a Church Parade, my dear departed Papa turned to a neighbour and said "look at that, everyone is out of step apart from our Rolyan". So I acknowledge that perhaps I should not be marching in these parades.

Not march in the parade? Change your mindset: you were freestyling! Simply, you can't change anyone else's beliefs or actions. You can put information and views in front of them, but it's not your choice how they react. That, you have to accept.

Horse wrote:Not march in the parade? Change your mindset: you were freestyling! Simply, you can't change anyone else's beliefs or actions. You can put information and views in front of them, but it's not your choice how they react. That, you have to accept.

Free styling.......I like it......if I used smileys I would want that one.

The rest of your comments are already how I think. Its a discussion forum, so I've put my opinions out there, while acknowledging the other opinions held by others.

Rolyan wrote:Having said that, perhaps the most important issue facing us is mini roundabouts at T junctions.

Roundabouts are great at keeping traffic moving when all the joining roads have a similar flow rate. They will not work where a minor road hits a major through-route. IMO, if granddad/grandma have a problem with negotiating T-junctions, then they can either get some extra training, go another way, stay at home or move somewhere where there isn't a T-junction for 10 miles.

I think what Christian was suggesting was that your opinion is, perhaps coincidentally, always at variance with the majority of other members. Thus, you ensure that there's always a debate to be had to satisfy your desire for it. Whether the views you put forward are actually yours, or just your debating position, I'm not sure. It seems you view a forum as a debating society, where everyone is given a position to adopt in each new topic.

Silk wrote:Roundabouts are great at keeping traffic moving when all the joining roads have a similar flow rate. They will not work where a minor road hits a major through-route.

I would agree 100% with that near my home they have done this on a unction in order to aid exit from a T junction instead it made things worse with an increased number of minor accident or near misseshttps://goo.gl/maps/xP8iewJY3Go

Majority of the traffic approaching via Medlock St are turning right you have to stop at the give way as you don't have a view left before hand.Many drivers travelling on Market street just ignore the roundabout even if you have already entered it whilst they are still on approach.